After being slapped with a multimillion-peso civil case by Justice Secretary-on-leave Hernando Perez, embattled Manila Rep. Mark "MJ" Jimenez now faces arrest and detention.
This possibility developed after the Supreme Court (SC) junked yesterday a petition by Jimenez to nullify the votes of four justices who refused to grant him bail while his extradition case to the US remains pending at the Manila Regional Trial Court.
In its two-page ruling, the High Tribunal branded as a "totally erroneous assumption" allegations by Jimenez’s lawyer that the concerned magistrates abstained because they had just been appointed when the decision was handed down on Sept. 24.
The SC stood pat on its decision to uphold the validity of the votes cast by Justices Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato Corona, Conchita Carpio-Morales and Romeo Callejo Sr. who were not present in the oral arguments that took place in August last year, but joined in the subsequent deliberations.
"The justices concerned had already been sworn into office and begun discharging their official functions well before the discussions and deliberations took place. The motion is based on totally erroneous assumptions," the ruling stated.
According to the tribunal, the four justices fully participated in the deliberations of Jimenez’s petition for bail prior to the final voting.
The four jurists were among the eight who voted to invalidate the P1-million bail Manila Judge Guillermo Purganan granted to Jimenez. They said Jimenez was a "flight risk" and that he should be arrested and detained while his extradition case is pending. Six justices dissented.
The SC also clarified that the dates of the oral argument and the final deadline for the submission of pleadings by both parties "are not decided with respect to the deliberations and voting."
"There is nothing unusual or irregular in its application here," the Court stressed.
The tribunal added that the participation of newly appointed magistrates in the deliberations and voting on cases that had already been submitted for resolution prior to their appointment is a normal procedure that is applied to all cases before the court. – Delon Porcalla